Luc D’Abadie Talks Himself Into a Jail Term

[Burnaby49]

I've been following this story for a while without bothering to start a discussion on it. Just bone-idleness on my part. It started with D’Abadie just peacefully running his own little business not bothering anybody. A marijuana grow-op in an abandoned theatre in a small town in Saskatchewan. This theatre;



A classic old prairie vaudeville theatre. They were the entertainment core of many small Canadian towns in the late 19th, early 20th century and many struggled on as movie theatres until TV killed them.

Things were going just grand for D'Abadie until September 7, 2010 when he got stopped at the border coming back into Canada with marijuana on him and got busted. The next day they did a search of the theatre and;

Inside the theatre, officers found approximately 416 marijuana plants in all stages of growth, as well as 10 pounds of cultivated marijuana which was ready for distribution. Police say the marijuana grow operation utilized a sophisticated and automated system to support the marijuana plants.
An employee at the Grenfell town office said the former theatre is part of the historic Windsor Block, which also contains apartments that have not been rented out since last spring. The theatre started as a vaudeville house -- the Marx Brothers performed there -- and was apparently a cinema from 1913 until some time in the 1960s.

While doing the raid the RCMP arrested Erika Miljkovic and both of them were charged with production of a controlled substance and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Apart from the inventive use of the theatre an everyday story here in Canada.

Miljkovic pled guilty and received an 18-month conditional sentence which meant she didn't have to go to jail. However D’Abadie dragged his heels until entering a guilty in 2013. Then instead of showing up for his sentencing hearing he ran and stayed free for about two years until he got caught in Alberta. Just like Menard he was nailed on traffic relate charges. As an aside I'd suggest that someone with an outstanding arrest warrant would be best advised not to break the little everyday laws we all ignore from time to time. Laws that are of no great consequence in themselves but which can get you official attention.

At this point if got a little tricky. He was locked up in Edmonton but the Saskatchewan warrant was served on him and he had a trial hearing in Saskatchewan by video from the Edmonton jail. At which point he went all Freeman. He could have walked on $7,500 bail after a subsequent Alberta hearing on the traffic charges but he didn't have it.

After the accused was picked up on November 5 in the Edmonton area on numerous traffic-related charges, RCMP executed the Saskatchewan warrant and D’Abadie was scheduled to appear in Yorkton Provincial Court by video from the Edmonton Remand Centre.

Appearing before Judge Ross Green November 13, D’Abadie refused to answer to his name, a tactic reminiscent of a movement known sometimes as Freemen-on-the-Land, or just Freemen, a loose affiliation of individuals who call themselves “Natural Persons,” “Sovereign Citizens” or “Living Souls.” Similar language is prominent on D’Abadie’s “Golden Cities Group” website, one project of which is an attempt to solicit investments in an “eco-farm” outside of Edmonton.

Proponents of the Freemen philosophy contend statute law is contractual and only applies to a person if they choose to be governed by it.

During his Yorkton court appearance, D’Abadie refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court attempting to shut down arguments by federal prosecutor Shane Wagner to have the judge order the defendant returned to Yorkton.

Green simply had the court clerk shut off the audio on the video feed. Ultimately, the judge ruled he did not have jurisdiction to make the order deferring to the Alberta courts.

D’Abadie appeared in Alberta provincial court at St. Albert on November 16 where he was granted release on $7,500 bail. He was unable to pay the amount and is currently remanded in Edmonton until his scheduled trial date of February 8.

http://www.yorktonthisweek.com/news/loc ... -1.2120542

The article ended with;

There is currently no future Yorkton court date scheduled on the Saskatchewan charges

.

However Saskatchewan evidently got their act together, hauled him back and he apparently pleaded guilty. Which led to this at the sentencing hearing;

The judge attempted to address the defendant as Mr. D’Abadie, but he refused to answer to that name.

“I may be addressed as Luc,” he said. “I’m here to press my claim upon the Court of Record. If I have said or done anything to lead this court, Crown, its agents or officers that I am a surety, the accused or a person in this matter, that is a mistake and please forgive me.”

As has been apparent since D’Abadie was first picked up in Alberta in November 2015, he has engaged in pseudo-legal tactics associated with a loosely affiliated group of people that have become known as Freemen on the Land. “Court of Record” is a buzzword for a common law court. They believe by refusing to recognize statute law, they cannot be governed by it and that any proceeding must have a claimant and a plaintiff who are both actual persons as opposed to the state or any institution of the state.

To that end, D’Adadie continued to address the Court by reading into the record a claim against federal prosecutor Shane Wagner.

“I, a man, Luc, have been trespassed against by Shane Wagner of Yorkton, Saskatchewan,” he said. “He has trespassed upon my property by way of extortion. He trespassed again and did harm and injury to my property. The commencement of the wrongdoing began September 2010. The wrongdoing and harm continue to this day.

“I require compensation for the initial and continual trespass upon my property. The compensation due is three-hundred and eighty-three thousand dollars. I require court of record trial.”

Leading to this;

Koskie acknowledged he had received the claim, but attempted to move on to the matter of another letter he had received from D’Abadie requesting his 2013 guilty plea be expunged.

“Dear clerk of the court,” it said. “I require that you take notice of the following: I wish the guilty plea entered in 2013 to be rescinded as it was entered upon duress and intimidation after receiving poor legal advice.”

So he wanted to have his guilty plea expunged and have a trial on the basis that he was innocent. The judge was game but just couldn't do it because our fool refused to cooperate in his own best interest.

A discussion ensued regarding dates for which the judge, the Crown and D’Abadie’s former defence attorney were all available. They settled on April 6, but when Koskie attempted to determine if the date was satisfactory for D’Abadie, the accused once again returned to Freeman tactics.

“I am an idiot to legalese,” he recited for the second time. “All I know is there is no claim against me by a man or a woman for any wrongdoing. I require that my property be restored immediately and that this matter be discharged and closed with prejudice.”

The judge sought to put an end to it.

“Okay, Mr. D’Abadie, do you want an expungement hearing on April 6 or not,” he said. “And, if you give me the same answer all I’m going to tell you is I’m going to sentence you today, so you should decide. Do you need a couple of minutes? You can think about it, but here’s your choices: I am going to sentence you today or I’m going to set it for an expungement hearing.”

And D’Abadie decided that being an idiot was the only honourable way to go. So the judge dumped the offer of an expungement hearing and sentenced him to eighteen months,

“Mr. D’Abadie,” he said. “I have given you a number of opportunities to speak with respect to your sentence; I’ve given you a number of opportunities with respect to an expungement hearing.”

After once again listening to the accused’s mantra, Koskie moved on to sentencing, accepting the Crown’s request for 18 months and crediting D’Abadie with 33 days for the 22 he has spent in custody since he was returned to Saskatchewan.

http://www.yorktonthisweek.com/news/loc ... -1.2160902

[LaVidaRoja]

"I am an idiot... '" Well, he was certainly telling the truth!

[The Observer]

And D’Abadie decided that being an idiot was the only honourable way to go.

Burnaby, I think you are being unduly harsh with Luc for being honest about his comprehension of (or lack thereof) the law. After all, he fully admitted that he was "...an idiot to legalese...”; the events of the trial certainly support his self-appraisal and the results were predictable. If you cannot even admire a man for being an honest idiot, then what does that say about you, good sir? Hmmmmm?

[Wake Up! Productions]

This is classic Karl Lentz crap. If you recall, Dean Clifford also tried the "idiot" magic bean on the last day of his trial. Didn't do him any good either.

[Hanslune]

What is the basis (in freeman terms) for the 'I'm an idiot' defense? Did someone else create that concept or did they both create the same non working idea?

[bmxninja357]

This is the first two people I have ever heard of using the idiot defense.

"If the dunce cap fits you must a aquit"
Ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

What is the basis (in freeman terms) for the 'I'm an idiot' defense? Did someone else create that concept or did they both create the same non working idea?

Karl Lentz created the "idiot" defense. He apparently made his own "law dictionary", in which he basically made up his own definitions. Too bad the courts don't use his dictionary.

His definition of "idiot" is basically to state that you (as a simple man) are an idiot in regards to legalese, therefore the law should not apply to you unless it is written as clearly as the 10 Commandments.

[NYGman]

Isn't Ebert also a paid Idiot? I think I recall him saying this at one point. I didn't think it possible to be a self-aware idiot...

[Hanslune]

What is the basis (in freeman terms) for the 'I'm an idiot' defense? Did someone else create that concept or did they both create the same non working idea?

Karl Lentz created the "idiot" defense. He apparently made his own "law dictionary", in which he basically made up his own definitions. Too bad the courts don't use his dictionary.

His definition of "idiot" is basically to state that you (as a simple man) are an idiot in regards to legalese, therefore the law should not apply to you unless it is written as clearly as the 10 Commandments.

Sorry I missed your answer until now - thanks

[Burnaby49]

Well Luke is still an idiot, he says so himself, or at least his representative did. He was back in court recently but his time not unrepresented. He had expert legal help. Adam Gauthier. This Adam Gauthier;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10875

It appears that Adam, after losing his home to foreclosure, has decided to try and set himself up as an OPCA style guru. If so this decision isn't going to promote his business;

R v Abadie, 2016 SKQB 101
http://canlii.ca/t/gp422

However, as I posted in Gauthier's own discussion, we are not to refer to him as Adam Gauthier any more, he has given himself a new moniker, Eiricki Ragnarok. If he is referencing this Ragnarök he's being a touch pretentious;

In Norse mythology, Ragnarök is a series of future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Týr, Freyr, Heimdallr, and Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters, and the subsequent submersion of the world in water. Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and returning gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. It is as well the end of the world, and the start of eternal winter. Ragnarök is an important event in the Norse canon, and has been the subject of scholarly discourse and theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k

I guess losing his house made him somewhat bitter.

So let's start with the bad news;

OVERVIEW

[1] This decision deals with the attempt by Luc Bernard d’Abadie to gain release from prison after his conviction and sentence by relying upon misguided interpretations of certain supposed legal principles. The within application seeking Mr. d’Abadie’s release, ostensibly based on his alleged right of habeas corpus, is dismissed.

On January 20, 2016 D'Abadie was sentenced to 18 months incarceration for having in his possession a controlled substance, cannabis marihuana, for the purpose of trafficking. He didn't take this well and filed this the next day;

CLAIM – Amended January 21, 2016

I, a Man, Luc, have been trespassed against by wrongdoers noted above:

– trespassed upon my property;
– by way of extortion, trespass did and does harm and injury to my property;

– commencement of wrongdoing began Sept 2010;

– wrongdoing and harm continues to this day;

– I require compensation for initial and continual trespass upon my property;
compensation due is three hundred and eighty four thousand dollars ($384,000.00);

– I require a court of record trial;

I, say, here, and will verify in open court, that all here is true.

And then Eiricki stepped into the story;

[7] Then, on February 29, 2016, another person is introduced in the proceedings, self-described as “a man, Adam.” He forwarded, by email, the following letter to the local registrar:

I, a man, Adam, did call the Yorkton Queens Bench court house on Monday, February 29th, 2016 as the next friend of Luc d’Abadie requiring a hearing date with respect to his claim of trespass dated February 4, 2016 which was sent to the court house. If it would please the court, and help accelerate the administration of justice, I can communicate his wishes and answer questions in regards to his claim.

And leapt into the fray by filing an application to the court;

[11] Then, by fax of March 2, 2016, Mr. Gauthier filed a Form 3-63 – Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum, with a return date of March 7, 2016.

POSITION OF MR. d’ABADIE VIA MR. GAUTHIER

[12] In support of the application, Mr. Gauthier prepared and filed a brief of law. Excerpts from the brief read as follows:

Position 1 (common law)

1. Luc Bernard d’Abadie is a man who does not wish to and currently does not hold any title. He is an idiot to legalese and not a member of the legal society. He requires that the court move under the common law. He has required in open court that the man or woman claiming he has done wrong come forward and press their claim on the record. This can be verified by review of the audio recording of his previous hearings. To my knowledge and his, there is no claim against Luc Bernard d’Abadie.

corpus delicti

1832, Latin, literally “body of the offense;” not “the murder victim’s body,” but the basic elements that make up a crime.

I believe the basic elements to make up the body of the crime are wrong, and the damage/harm/loss. I do not believe the crown has shown or made any case, providing for both elements.

I believe government is created by man for the purpose of protecting and securing mans property. It then should cause no harm to man since it was created for his benefit.
…

Position 2 (Constitutional Challenge) [laws inconsistent with Charter, seeks remedy via section 24(1)]
…
It is alleged that, the arrest, detainment, and subsequent charges being brought against Luc Bernard d’Abadie are inconsistent with sections, 7,8,9, and 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by way of section 52 are of no force or effect.
…
If that fails and the court finds no issue in the arrest process, then next comes the status of Luc Bernard d’Abadie with respect to the Charter. He has made it clear he is a man who does not wish to hold any title and currently does not. He stands in his inherent jurisdiction at all times and was acting in a private capacity at the time of the alleged offence. As such he does not fall under the authority of the Charter or the subsequent enactments which it governs. Does the crown have any evidence that he was performing a function of government of any kind at the time of the offense or that he has any obligation to do so? If there is no evidence that he was performing a function of government, then the charges are in consistent with section 32 and by way of section 52 are of no force or effect. If this position is accepted by the court Luc does not wish for it to impair his ability to seek compensatory damages against Shane Wagnor and would only wish to use this remedy to discharged the current matter and allow him to move his claim against Shane Wagnor.
…
The charges appear to be statutory in nature as they are for a “victimless crime” which has no equivalent that I am aware of in common law. It appears that if Luc had been in possession of a license to cultivate cannabis, he would not be in jail. It seems “devoid of logic” and contrary to the fundamental principles of justice to hold a man in jail, destroy his character, and cripple him financially over a victimless crime.

But then back to badmouthing his client;

[15] Mr. Gauthier stated that he had no title and he asked the court to address him as “Adam.” Similarly, Mr. Gauthier referred to me, the presiding judge, as “Donald,” although I advised him that I, indeed, had a title. Mr. Gauthier’s demeanour throughout was cordial and respectful. His arguments were a reiteration of the brief of law which he had previously filed. He repeated that Mr. d’Abadie was an “idiot,” he did not understand legalese and his offence was a victimless crime. In some way, Mr. Gauthier suggested that the common law governed and statutory law had no application – at least such was the interpretation that I gleaned from his brief presentation. Both the brief of law and Mr. Gauthier’s presentation could be called pseudo-law at best, but, more frankly, legal gibberish.

Sadly the courts refused to accept Adam's Habeas corpus argument.

CONCLUSION

[17] I have several problems with this application, both procedural and substantive.

[18] Procedurally, I see nothing on the court file showing that Mr. Gauthier speaks for Mr. d’Abadie or is his proper representative in this matter.

[19] Although ordered by Justice Kalmakoff to serve both the Crown and the Provincial Correctional Centre with notice of this application, I see no proof of service upon the latter.

[20] However, regardless of these less important procedural matters, the application is substantively meritless and is dismissed. Habeas corpus is a right unavailable to a person who has been tried (or who has entered a plea of guilty) and has been sentenced, all without entry of an appeal, as has been the case with Mr. d’Abadie.

[21] The similarity of this application to other court applications that have come before Canadian courts, invariably citing the same type of misguided reasoning, suggests a group of similarly-minded adherents. Associate Chief Justice Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench wrote a 735 paragraph decision in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), [2013] 3 WWR 419 with the stated purpose “to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA [Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants] community as part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada.” (Para 3). Among the various arguments routinely advanced with these groups – whether named by Justice Rooke as “Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list” – Justice Rooke identified an argument commonly advanced which parallels Mr. Gauthier’s argument. At paras. 325 and 326 he wrote:

[325] Another ‘immunity’ ‘magic hat’ is an argument that the litigant is only subject to a different form of law than that which would otherwise apply to the present action. This category is arguably a facet of the ‘restricted court authority’ immunity group.

[326] It is helpful at this point to make a few comments on the manner in which OPCA litigants often use the term “common law”. OPCA litigants often draw an arbitrary line between “statutes” and “common law”, and say they are subject to “common law”, but not legislation. Of course, the opposite is in fact true, the “common law” is law developed incrementally by courts, and which is subordinate to legislation: statutes and regulations passed by the national and provincial governments. The Constitution Act provides the rules and principles that restrict the scope and nature of legislation, both by jurisdiction and on the basis of rights (ie. the Charter).

[22] In Sands, Justice Konkin of Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench also dealt with an application for habeas corpus brought by Keith Sands, the brother of Randy Sands who was remanded in custody after a show-cause hearing. In his application Keith Sands stated that his brother was a person of a common law jurisdiction and that statute law only applied to agents or employees of the Crown, unless the individual entered into a contract with the Crown to be bound by statute law. Justice Konkin offered his frank assessment of Mr. Sands’ argument at paras. 15 and 16:

[15] …This notion is completely untenable. Mr. Sands admitted in the hearing that he is a citizen of Canada and, at the time, was

resident in the Province of Saskatchewan. If he had breached the provisions of the Criminal Code, he is liable to prosecution under the Criminal Code. Likewise for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. He cannot simply opt out.

[16] I find that the Court had and has jurisdiction to preside over these matters with Mr. Sands and, as such, there is a valid existing order of that Court remanding Mr. Sands on his criminal charges.

[23] Just as Justice Konkin found in Sands, I, too, find that Mr. d’Abadie is subject to a valid and existing exercise of judicial authority. In this application a warrant of committal has been entered and no appeal has been taken. The application for habeas corpus is without merit. It is dismissed.

I always enjoy courts making reference to the 'magic hat' reference in Meads v Meads. Makes me think of the Hogworts sorting ceremony.

[Jeffrey]

That's textbook Karl Lentz material.

[Dr. Caligari]

Well Luke is still an idiot, he says so himself,

An honest Freeman!

[notorial dissent]

Actually, I would agree that they are BOTH idiots, legal and otherwise. Yee cats!!!! Very patient judge I would say.

[The Observer]

Well Luke is still an idiot, he says so himself,

An honest Freeman!

Strong contender for the Diogenes Award.

[grixit]

Use the gibberish, Luc!

[wserra]

The Farce. Please.

[Jeffrey]

We now have slightly more evidence that Justice Rooke reads Quatloos:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/20 ... qb213.html

Referring to the D'Abadie case:

The “idiot to legalese” argument and other components of this decision betrays the identity of at least one of Gauthier and d’Abadie’s gurus: Karl Rudolph Lentz. Lentz is a US OPCA guru who uses characteristic motifs, such as “i: a man; prosecutor”, and targets “wrongdoer(s)” who “trespassed on his property”, see for example: Lentz v Robert Bentley, Docket 2:12-cv-1014-MHT, US District Court, Alabama, Northern Division; Lentz v Department of Human Resources, Docket 2:13-cv-387-MEF, US District Court, Alabama, Northern Division. Lentz’s concepts work no better in Canada than in the US. Lentz personally appeared in R v Zombori, (Williams Lake) 20130927 (BCSC), the trial of two Freeman-on-the-Land marijuana grow-op offenders, where the Court explicitly rejected Lentz as a litigation representative. Lentz appears to be nothing more than another OPCA guru fraud who has personally failed when he tried to apply his techniques. He and his ideas are not welcome in Canadian courts.

[The Observer]

He and his ideas are not welcome in Canadian courts.

Wow. I can't wait to see signs going up outside Canadian courtrooms: "No Freemen need file."

[notorial dissent]

What a ringing, and accurate, character assessment.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Am I the only one who has noticed that Rooke seems to be handling all of Freeman cases in the Edmonton area? I hardly think this is by chance.